Jump to content


Photo

Wrenn v. DC


  • Please log in to reply
198 replies to this topic

#181 Xwing

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,570 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 09

Posted 04 October 2017 - 09:50 AM

I am going to apply this week.

 

IMO, go for it!  What do you have to lose, other than the filing fee?  Please keep us posted on the progress.  I suspect DC will ignore the law and deny, but would be interesting to see.  If you meet their other requirements (striking "good cause" per the courts), they are required to approve.


NRA Lifetime Member
IGOLD 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016
CCW Laws: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Posted anti-gun business listing: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Gun Range Tools & Logs: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Illinois Government: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)


#182 ghk012

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 13

Posted 04 October 2017 - 10:10 AM

If I am reading the "stereo instructions" of the court system correctly, DC has up to 90 days to appeal to the Supreme Court.    So roughly 12/27/17.  



#183 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,285 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 05 October 2017 - 05:28 AM

If I am reading the "stereo instructions" of the court system correctly, DC has up to 90 days to appeal to the Supreme Court.    So roughly 12/27/17.


90 days from entry of final judgment, which would be the denial of en banc. Relevant section of Supreme Court Rule 13.1:

"Unless otherwise provided by law, a petition for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment in any case, civil or criminal, entered by a state court of last resort or a United States court of appeals (including the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces) is timely when it is filed with the Clerk of this Court within 90 days after entry of the judgment."

Extensions are governed by Supreme Court Rule 13.5:

"For good cause, a Justice may extend the time to file a petition for awrit of certiorari for a period not exceeding 60 days. An application to extend the time to file shall set out the basis for jurisdiction in this Court, identify the judgment sought to be reviewed, include a copy of the opinion and any order respecting rehearing, and set out specific reasons why an extension of time is justified. The application must be filed with the Clerk at least 10 days before the date the petition is due, except in extraordinary circumstance."

The Supreme Court has a very liberal definition of "good cause." "I'm an overworked government lawyer" is "good cause."
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#184 Rail

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 209 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 08

Posted 05 October 2017 - 08:41 AM

DC will not appeal!
 

http://www.nbcwashin...-449515203.html
 



#185 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,701 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 05 October 2017 - 11:47 AM

File this one under: "Elections Have Consequences".


Ad utrumque paratus


#186 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,788 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 05 October 2017 - 02:32 PM

DC will not appeal!
 
http://www.nbcwashin...-449515203.html


Chances are somebody convinced them not to, probably someone from a blue state afraid of having their restrictions also overturned. I suspect that as the gun control movement becomes more desperate, you'll likely see more and more instances of blue states refusing to appeal 2A cases for fear of setting a national precedent, and simply take their loss as a sacrifice for the wider gun control movement and their allies in other blue states.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#187 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,285 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 05 October 2017 - 02:41 PM

Same reason Lisa didn't file a cert petition in Moore. She knew the case would be taken by SCOTUS and, well, I'd like to think that SCOTUS would have affirmed CA7.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#188 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,788 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 05 October 2017 - 02:45 PM

Same reason Lisa didn't file a cert petition in Moore. She knew the case would be taken by SCOTUS and, well, I'd like to think that SCOTUS would have affirmed CA7.


Exactly. Thankfully these people tend to be very cocky and overconfident, and eventually someone will slip up, let their ego get the best of them, and they'll make a big tactical error.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#189 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,735 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 05 October 2017 - 04:15 PM

Same reason Lisa didn't file a cert petition in Moore. She knew the case would be taken by SCOTUS and, well, I'd like to think that SCOTUS would have affirmed CA7.


I was also going to say this. They want us to undo may-issue one circuit at a time...

IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#190 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,202 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 05 October 2017 - 07:47 PM

Same reason Lisa didn't file a cert petition in Moore. She knew the case would be taken by SCOTUS and, well, I'd like to think that SCOTUS would have affirmed CA7.


I was also going to say this. They want us to undo may-issue one circuit at a time...

I think every other circuit that has a "may issue" state other than DC has already had a case and found it to be constitutional.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#191 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,701 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 06 October 2017 - 05:58 AM

Now that DC has decided not to appeal, it will have to craft a new law and regs implementing shall-issue carry licensing. It will be interesting to see the details of the new scheme. It will be particularly interesting to see whether they invite further challenges, as Chicago did after Ezell, or craft a law designed to avoid going back to court.


Ad utrumque paratus


#192 ghk012

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 13

Posted 06 October 2017 - 01:49 PM

Am I correct in saying that the DC ruling only affects District 4 (WV, VA, NC, SC, and DC).  So this is great for them, but does nothing to change the "may issue" rules in NY, NJ, Maryland, ETC.



#193 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,829 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 06 October 2017 - 04:09 PM

Am I correct in saying that the DC ruling only affects District 4 (WV, VA, NC, SC, and DC).  So this is great for them, but does nothing to change the "may issue" rules in NY, NJ, Maryland, ETC.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia only covers DC. It's the only thing in that Circuit.

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#194 Xwing

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,570 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 09

Posted 06 October 2017 - 07:29 PM

Now that DC has decided not to appeal, it will have to craft a new law and regs implementing shall-issue carry licensing. It will be interesting to see the details of the new scheme. It will be particularly interesting to see whether they invite further challenges, as Chicago did after Ezell, or craft a law designed to avoid going back to court.

 

It sounds like they will keep the existing scheme, and just delete the words "good reason".  That would likely (IMO) withstand court scrutiny.  But let's see how quickly they do it...


NRA Lifetime Member
IGOLD 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016
CCW Laws: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Posted anti-gun business listing: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Gun Range Tools & Logs: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Illinois Government: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)


#195 quackersmacker

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,381 posts
  • Joined: 21-September 12

Posted 06 October 2017 - 07:39 PM

 

Now that DC has decided not to appeal, it will have to craft a new law and regs implementing shall-issue carry licensing. It will be interesting to see the details of the new scheme. It will be particularly interesting to see whether they invite further challenges, as Chicago did after Ezell, or craft a law designed to avoid going back to court.

 

It sounds like they will keep the existing scheme, and just delete the words "good reason".  That would likely (IMO) withstand court scrutiny.  But let's see how quickly they do it...

 

The court issued an order this morning instructing them to get on it right away.  https://www.washingt...m=.92b1bef22e26


Life Member --- NRA
Life Member --- Second Amendment Foundation
Member        --- ISRA
Member        --- Single Action Shooting Society    [Lt John Dunbar]
Member        --- Aurora Sportsmen's Club
Member        --- Tri County Gun Club
 
Fellow Members:  Please consider making at least an annual $25 contribution to this fine organization, which has proven its worth -----and you will then become a member of the Supporting Members Team.   In this case, it's definitely about putting your money where your mouth is!   And, getting results.  Who knows what the future holds.....these may just be some of the best dollars you'll ever spend.

#196 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,285 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 07 October 2017 - 06:50 AM

Good. No staying of the mandate for half a year to allow a bunch of crooked politicians to rework the law. All they needed to do is delete the good reason requirement. But yeah, they'll tack on God knows what requirements for training and/or cavity search backgrounds. Since they can't use some arbitrary BS to deny a right, they'll simply price it out of reach (or make it so applicants have to complete a 40 hour class in less than 48 hours, something completely asinine and impossible to fulfill) of most residents.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#197 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 12,241 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 07 October 2017 - 12:37 PM

they'll simply price it out of reach

 

 

Unfortunately Kwong opened the door for exactly that.


Edited by C0untZer0, 07 October 2017 - 12:37 PM.

Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.
- N. A. Halkides -
 

 


#198 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,788 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 07 October 2017 - 03:31 PM

Good. No staying of the mandate for half a year to allow a bunch of crooked politicians to rework the law. All they needed to do is delete the good reason requirement. But yeah, they'll tack on God knows what requirements for training and/or cavity search backgrounds. Since they can't use some arbitrary BS to deny a right, they'll simply price it out of reach (or make it so applicants have to complete a 40 hour class in less than 48 hours, something completely asinine and impossible to fulfill) of most residents.


But that's very telling, though: they know they can't win in court, so they figure that they'll delay the exercise of a right and force the court to go rule by rule, line by line, manually overturning each as they go along. It's a delaying tactic because they know these laws are done for anyway.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#199 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,285 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 08 October 2017 - 06:14 AM

they'll simply price it out of reach

 
Unfortunately Kwong opened the door for exactly that.

Kwong was denied cert so no judgment on the merits. Only binding within CA2. Would be interesting to see someone sue over the cost of a FOID or FCCL or both. Not the best time for one of these cases to be heard due to the events in Vegas and the mental health, radicalization issues.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users